Yeah, and there's hardly ever any discussion of the books there. I know it's in The Rulz that off-topic discussions are Bad (unless they're about fish puns, anyway), but a little slack never killed anyone.
Bad Review of ENT: Kobayashi Maru at Pink Raygun
- Thread starter thesadpanda
- Start date
Certainly, which is why I let it flow for a bit, but I think we've drifted a bit off topic.
And there has been some book discussion there. In fact, there's a thread on it right now.
And there has been some book discussion there. In fact, there's a thread on it right now.
The part of the Doctor Who books discussion that's relevant here is the fact that, once upon a time, Doctor Who was off the air and the books were full of experimentation and freedom and did lots of neat things, even starting books-only spinoffs starring original characters, and most of that came to an end when the new series started, leaving some book fans very frustrated, especially those who don't care for the new series (a group that doesn't include me).
How that may be relevant to a show like Star Trek, currently off the air and having quite the bloom in creativity in the books, is left as an exercise to the reader.
How that may be relevant to a show like Star Trek, currently off the air and having quite the bloom in creativity in the books, is left as an exercise to the reader.
Definitely. We also saw the similar belt-tightening, "return to the franchise" with ST tie-ins in 1989. The growing popularity of TNG, and the increased pace of tie-in releases, caused the then-ST Office to curtail much of the experimentation and freedom (ie. no more Rihannsu, no more TAS characters in DC Comics, please concentrate on the stars featured in opening credits of both TOS and TNG, no sequels of original novels, no more sharing of original characters) that had been going on the the 80s.
Thankfully, "that memo" was being ignored again after Roddenberry's passing in September 1991, but had an effect on how the books, comics and RPGs were commissioned, written and promoted for a number of years before and after that date.
In the mid 60s, "Batman" comics began to reflect the camp style of the Adam West TV "Batman".
I guess the feeling is that new fans seeking out a tie-in product have an expectation that it will somehow match the viewing experience of the show that caused them to seek out the tie-in.
Well, the TV Batman was actually a fairly literal interpretation of what the comics were like at the time, so it went both ways. The change in style wasn't really all that great. It would be more accurate, I think, to say that the comics adopted designs and characters from the show (the convertible Batmobile, Catwoman's domino mask and catsuit, and the Barbara Gordon version of Batgirl).
In fact, when the show was just starting development, DC editor Julius Schwartz had the wisdom to reintroduce members of Batman's colorful rogues' gallery who had been missing from the comics for a long time, recognizing that the show's makers would be emulating what the comics did and the show would have a better chance of success with charismatic guest villains. So that was a way in which the comics pre-emptively got the shows to follow their lead, although in a sense it was a response to the show as well. And reintroducing the supervillains proved beneficial to the comic in the long run.
Of course there's a long history of comics being influenced by mass-media adaptations. The Daily Planet, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, and Kryptonite originated on radio before being added to the comics. Superman gained the ability to fly (rather than leaping in 1/8-mile bounds) because it worked better in the Fleischer cartoons. In the '70s, the comics' Hulk began wandering the country like Bill Bixby. And so on.
Yep. And the comics had also killed off Alfred. The popularity of the TV show caused the comics to rethink the permanency of his "death".
It'll be interesting to see, if there is ever a second Shatner "Academy" novel, whether he and the Reeves-Stevens incorporate details from ST XI?
I also wonder if the Reeves-Stevens are keen to do ENT Relaunch novels?
Ooh, that would be sweet.
ent agree.
this is one of those threads i pretty much ignored when it started, who gives a crap about a guy bashing books i enjoy based on an excerpt. but i skimmed though it, ignoring anything over a paragraph, people, tighten it up, when somebody said something brilliant. a reeves-stephens ent relaunch book would rock. in fact any reeves-stephens non-shatner ST book would be something i would look forward too. guessing they are too busy with the shatner books and other projects to get to that...
Okay, my eyes are still spinning. Are you saying you were ignoring the reviewer's complaints about paragraph lengths, or are you advising folks here to "tighten it up" and not post anything over a paragraph?
Same here.
I don't think it's just a matter of "their" writing style, though - generally speaking, a certain approach to descriptive passages, such as proportion of dialogue to narrative etc. is encouraged in popular fiction - just as most paperback over art in the science fiction genre is now tight and "realistic" illustration (Jack Gaughan would starve today). Prose on the model of Hemingway would be far too spare for the market.
Um ... are you honestly suggesting that the only reason the Star Trek writers don't write like Hemingway is that the market just wouldn't stand for it?
I think the guy has a point, and I think the rewrite in the comments (not the original guy's rewrite) is at least ten times better than the original. The Trek books are ... OK. They don't cause climate change or supply weapons to the Janjaweed or whatever, let's keep this in perspective, but as books they're a little lazy and they do have a few common style problems and that guy was clearly using that one passage as an example of those.
Pinkraygun, if that is indeed his real name, is onto something, and instead of getting all defensive, the Trek writers should pick up a Who novel like Human Nature (free on the BBC website nowadays) and see what can be done with a tie-in novel. The nineties Who books are the gold standard, and I think Keith already knows that. They didn't 'lose an audience', instead they proved that the show could be something bigger and better. It's no coincidence that pretty much all the new show's writers started out on the New Adventures.
Without a TV show, the Trek novels have the opportunity to create loyalties and set ambitions for themselves. The way to do that isn't story gimmicks (as the Who books found when they blew up Gallifrey then didn't do anything with that - the lazy Trek equivalent would be some cheap 'shock' like blowing up the Earth or something), it's good writing. Make us care about the characters. Some of the best moments of the Trek TV series are just little looks the characters give each other, or quiet little moments.
The Star Trek books could be better. That's a given. Even if they were the best books in the world, they could always be better, and the authors should always be striving to make them better, making positive statements about how they're trying to do that. Not just distancing themselves from that one example, or dismissing that post as just another wannabe.
So, here's my cheeky challenge - Trek authors here: pick a paragraph of yours that you think is well-written, slap it up here and explain why you like it.
True, but there are a few points here:
1) He’s not ‘reviewing the book’, he’s making a general point about the line, using one passage as an example.
2) The reason that passage was in the giveaway in the first place was, presumably, to sway the undecided and show Star Trek fiction at its best. So it's legitimate, surely, to say ‘that didn't sway me'? If the trailer doesn’t make the moviegoer want to see the movie, it’s not the moviegoer’s fault, let alone his problem. If it’s the start of a book, it’s the same deal – that passage is presumably there to wow and hook people and get them to keep reading.
3) You weren't exactly going out of your way to defend the passage. Not to the David Mack extent of effectively saying (post 60 in this thread) 'it's terrible, but we don't all write that badly', but isn't it telling that you didn't say 'wow, that passage was GREAT, what's his problem?'.
4) The guy in the comments thread – some random passing fanboy - who reworked the passage did a better job than the professional writer who was hired to write the book. Doesn’t that worry you, even a little bit?
OK ... for the people who've not looked at the original post - or don't go around memorizing these things - here are the two passages. The first is from the actual book, the other's from a random passing fanboy. Which do you prefer:
or
Blind taste test challenge, which of those is best?
Interesting thread...I tend to be of the opinion that the quality of Star Trek novels in the last several years (starting with the DS9 relaunch) has been quite good to excellent in certain cases. I chose not to read the review becuase I find reading reviews for movies and books that I'm interested in actually results in giving me preconcieved notions about how a book or movie is going to be prior to reading or viewing them and ends up ruining it for me. So I like to go in blind. Fact is I'm very much looking forward to reading the book still and am not going to let one person's opinion deter my possible enjoyment or dislike of the book.
I have a more detailed post to reply later on -- I'm on my way out the door right now -- but the answer to this question is easy: the first one.
There are some ways in which the second bit is better than the first bit, but there are two criteria that vault Andy & Mike's original over the rewrite: 1) their scene sounds like two people talking instead of two characters talking, and 2) (and this is the biggie) I hear the voices of Scott Bakula and Ada Maris in the first scene, and I don't even a little in the second.
Actually, the second one is the original...
Which is an illegitimate use, because it makes the totally false assumption that all Trek novels are written in the same style. We're all different people with our own distinct voices and creative approaches. There's no "house style" that we're required to conform to. So the writing style of a book by one author cannot validly be used as an example of the line in general, certainly not in isolation. The only legitimate way to make a point about the line in general is with a representative sample of excerpts from a range of different authors. One example doesn't prove any kind of pattern.
No, the reason that passage was in the giveaway is because it's from a book that's coming out in a few months' time. The samples were from Greater Than the Sum, the August book; Kobayashi Maru, the September book; and Destiny: Gods of Night, the October book.
Also, the sampler was handed out at a panel on upcoming Trek fiction, so it's a safe assumption that most of the people in the audience are already fans of the books, not "undecided" people in need of swaying.
